First Lawsuits Challenging FCC's New Net Neutrality Rules Arrive 318
An anonymous reader writes: A small ISP based in Texas and an industry trade group have become the first to file lawsuits challenging the FCC's recent net neutrality rules. The trade group, USTelecom, argues that the regulations are not "legally sustainable." Alamo Broadband claims it is facing "onerous requirements" by operating under Title II of the Communications Act. Such legal challenges were expected, and are doubtless the first of many — but few expected them to arrive so soon. While some of the new rules were considered "final" once the FCC released them on March 12, others don't go into effect until they're officially published in the Federal Register, which hasn't happened yet.
Alamo Broadband's complaint (Score:5, Interesting)
The Alamo Broadband complaint reads as follows:
Alamo seeks relief on the grounds that the Order: (1) is in excess of the Commission's authority; (2) is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act; (3) is contrary to constitutional right; and (4) is otherwise contrary to law.
That's about as generic as it can get. I don't see it going anywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Basically the rule says to not use equipment to arbitrarily slow speeds down for competitive reasons. It says do nothing. That doesn't seem to be a very onerous requirement at all.
Re:Alamo Broadband's complaint (Score:5, Interesting)
Post-capitalism also conveniently eliminates pesky constitutional guarantees enforcing the rule of law. Contractual language can now eliminate search warrants and right of privacy when Stingray cellphone technology [wikipedia.org] is used for mass surveillance. Both government and private enterprise benefit in post-capitalism.
Broadband providers have just as much right as any other business to run an entrenched monopolistic enterprise and make vast amounts of money. I fully expect that the current court system will correct the loopholes that threaten their guaranteed profitability, and give them the same protection under the law that other corrupt special interests enjoy in our post-capitalist system.
Why is this so hard to understand? It's obviously the American Way.
Re: (Score:3)
Why did someone mark this as troll? If anything it's snark. Just because someone doesn't agree doesn't it a troll. For example, a troll is me saying that only frothy morons would mark that post as a troll, but of course I would not say that as it would be insulting to frothy morons.
What is Net Neutrality anyhow???? (Score:2)
Yeah, I get the notion that if comcast wants to shake down netflix ("nice packets you got there, shame if they got slowed down by all of your competitors packets") that's bad.
But I don't fully understand how this works practically. For example, lets ignore that Netflix or Google might have its own CDN or peering capability and just think of it as a simple content source. My imagination is that they pay for bandwidth and total data cap in the same sense that I do. That is, Netflix could buy a X gigbit connec
Re:What is Net Neutrality anyhow???? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem there is Comcast double dipping. Their users have already paid for best effort bandwidth. If Comcast has their hand out to Netflix (who is not currently their customer), then necessarily Comcast hasn't given their own customers best effort (if they can't do better, what is Netflix paying for?)
The worst abuses happen when the ISP itself provides content (for example video on demand) and takes steps to make other offers less attractive by deliberately providing them a poorer quality of service then their own VOD servers get.
Lets say you own a turnpike. Someone opens a gas station just off the turnpike. Fine and dandy. But you see that they make good money so you build your own gas station on the next exit. But the profits could be better so suddenly the off ramp next to the other guy's station is perpetually 'closed for repairs' yet the repairs never seem to happen. But pumping gas is a lot like work, so you offer the other guy a 'deal' For 10% of his profits, you will 'expidite' the 'repairs' and make sure they aren't 'necessary' again.
It's just one step up from organized crime offering 'insurance' to local businesses, because "you know, stuff happens, buildings burn down..."
Network neutrality is the people saying "that's pretty bad behavior for someone who wouldn't even be in business if not for that sweet public grant of right of way. Show some gratitude and cut it out!".
Re: (Score:2)
They tried that (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040600742.html) and the court said "You don't have authority to do that because internet isn't title II regulated". Therefore now internet is Title II regulated.
Min
Re: (Score:3)
And, just as a reminder, the FCC first enacted extremely weak Net Neutrality regulations (not Title II) that actually wouldn't have done anything. Most of the ISPs liked these "regulations", but Verizon sued to get them overturned. It was *that* case where the court basically said "If you want to do this, you need to use Title II." So the ISPs really only have Verizon to blame for these tougher rules.
Re: (Score:2)
In which case, would it not have more appropriate for the legislature to have passed a law to that effect?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I was waiting to get to the "onerous" part, but I didn't see it. They might have well just said:
Alamo seeks relief on the grounds that the Order: (1) is stupid.
But, of course it will go somewhere, because they filed it, and as it says in their petition, "venue is proper" (5th Circuit) because they are from Texas. I wonder how much money they are getting paid to essentially file this suit as a proxy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Your honor, I object on the grounds that counsel is a poopy head.
Re: (Score:2)
The devil is in the details.
Re: (Score:2)
They guarantee absolutely nothing but want $50/mo for a "suggested" 2Mbps down/1 Mbps up; just the sort of ratfucks that need some competition. Read that page and be thankful you don't have to rely on them for a connection...
Re: (Score:2)
I tried to visit that website.... alamobroadband.com, but my endpoint security software indicates that site is unsafe and contains malware.
Anyways.... the $50/mo minimum is just about what a small ISP would need to charge; however 2Mbps down/1 Up is hardly any better than T1 speeds.... that would be no good
Re: (Score:3)
Even better, they claim no commit is a FEATURE!. They gently explain that it's nothing to worry about and that a committed rate is something businesses expect.
I flip over to their business rates and find STILL NO COMMIT.
And they have Amazon ads at the bottom of each page. Is it just me or does that lend the site that coveted unprofessional look?
Re: (Score:2)
I just find it funny how they claim it is "onerous" to maintain the status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "rest of the complaint". The rest is just legal mumbo-jumbo saying who they are and why the place they filed their complaint is the correct venue. I quoted the whole of their argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I should have said "claim".
Re: (Score:2)
The "unconstitutional" thing is more of the same old gripe that anything the feds are not explicitly allowed in the constitution is forbidden. It's an idea that's been overruled since the first congress was seated.
And of course, the feds are explicitly allowed to regulate interstate commerce by the constitution and the internet fits into that mold easily.
Why net neutrality will become a thing of the past (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple, it has become a political thing. Despite my warnings ( as loud as I could make them but OK not that loud ), to keep arguing it as a nonpartisan issue. THe opponents of net neutrality have an advantage that we who support it do not. Once net neutrality is gone, it will be hard to bring back. The ISP cartel knew this and were fighting very hard for politicization to happen.
Instead of, for example, arguing that this action swaps in one set of regulations for another, ( In fact the old set gave all the power to the ISP cartels, and they took us from #1 internet service to middle of the rtoad. ) some proponents let the ISP cartels make it a political issue. The fact is that some people would rather have Title II as a political argument instead of actually having the ISPs be controlled by Title II.
So here is what will happen, the ISP cartel will tie up the implementation for the next two years in court. Then who becomes President? Hillary? Seems to be imploding right in front of us. John Kerry? The guy who helped bring back the cold war. and Al Queda in the form of ISIS and who couldn't win before? Joe Biden. The guy whose interactions with women is so creepy he makes BIll Clinton seem normal.
here is an interesting fact for you , since World War II there has only been one person elected as President that came from the same party as the sitting President-- Bush (41) (following Reagan).
So we have a Republican, who when the next seat on the FCC comes up names a Republican FCC member who replaces a Democrat. The new Chairman becomes Ajit Pai. Bye bye net neutrality.
Who is this company? (Score:3, Interesting)
boooo hooooo (Score:2)
Whoever heard... (Score:2)
Whoever heard of an asinine, progress retarding lawsuit coming out of East Texas before?
Anyone?
RIP Internet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Net neutrality is a net loss, because the customer could benefit from having not-so-neutral features (ie: let say ISPs favored streaming instead of throttling it?)
It was just better than the alternative in light of having so little competition. With proper competition, this would have solved itself.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Randian Dumbfuckery (Score:5, Insightful)
That's as asinine as a communist claiming that if you start your own business, it will be a given that you'll dump toxic waste into the river while sexually harassing your secretary. Because other business owners have done that and the communist has an axe to grind.
The government passed regulations on seat belts, lead paint, asbestos, DDT, and of course the FCC which has thus far prevented NBC from trying to edge out ABC with more powerful transmitters. It didn't cause civilization to collapse, capitalism to be banned, or Zombie Stalin to come for your stock options.
Your solution is to let AT&T and Comcast double and triple charge anyone and everyone who connects through their network? GTFO with these Randian clown shoes.
Re: (Score:3)
The internet is the innovation/extension of the POTS systems, today more and more is VoIP instead of analog lines. So the progress of classifying the internet the same way is a natural development.
The problem with the analog lines is that they have come to an end on how much information they can carry. In addition to that the services offered on POTS lines will be entirely what the telecom operator decides that you can get and it won't work on another telecom operator. With the internet you get an open plat
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC also heavily regulated the telecom industry. We had no innovation for decades
We also had no competition for decades. It had nothing to do with regulation, it was because Ma Bell was the only game in town (FSVO "town" approaching "manifest destiny").
Re: (Score:2)
Because they encouraged the monopolies.
Franchise agreements were the first part, LEGAL contrasts with cities and states to keep competitors out with higher entrance costs and kickbacks.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, how was Ma Bell able to maintain a monopoly and keep anyone else from competing?
Oh, that's right! The FUCKING GOVERNMENT prevented competition!
And yes, there *will* be regulatory capture. Shit, practically every federal regulatory agency/dept./bureau suffers from it!
I've got a morbid curiosity to see just how the government through it's short-sightedness and desire to monitor everyone/everything causes an internet 'Dee
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, how was Ma Bell able to maintain a monopoly and keep anyone else from competing?
Oh, that's right! The FUCKING GOVERNMENT prevented competition!
Which was unrelated to the FCC's Title II regulation: "the government" is not one big, monolithic entity.
The government also continued to interfere after Ma Bell was broken up, and even after ISPs were re-classified as Title I communication services: every time they laid new cable or fiber. There is no internet access without government action - none of the providers are going to arrange land use/rental agreements with every property owner, so the only reason it's even a thing is because of the government e
Re:May you choke on your own words (Score:5, Funny)
Right. If private enterprise had been in charge of the space program, we might have sent a man to the moon by now.
Re:May you choke on your own words (Score:5, Insightful)
the same way it mucked up:
-railroads linking the country
-the interstate that provided the backbone for industry, so that suppliers no longer had to be next door to factories (which creates a dynamic where every town is its own industrial enclave), but could supply the entire nation
-the telephone network allowing instantaneous real time voice communication across the country, where before moving from coast to coast typically meant leaving all your family and friends behind essentially forever, other than a couple letters a year
-creating a currency that fuels and backs our economy
-creating the rules and regulations that permit businesses to operate in a predictable and profitable manner, along with legal protections for everyone and everything involved (company, employer, employee, consumer, copyright, trademarks, business practices)
-safe food that doesn't require finding out a supplier is bad by having people die first
-safe cars that don't require finding out a supplier is bad by having people die first
-safe homes and buildings (the building code) that doesn't require finding out a construction company is bad by having people die first
-safe (lots of things) that don't require having people die first
-a military that ensures the nation is secure from outside threats, rather than having every city state or town see to its own defense, or worse have it provided by rival companies ala The Syndicate (also acts as a unifying force, otherwise cities/states essentially act as their own nation states)
-public health, particularly including vaccinations
The list goes on.
But the point is this: to say government always mucks it up is ignorant. No, government isn't perfect. But in our nation, and other free nations like us, if its not perfect we are able to fix it, and more importantly, fix it without resorting to violence and revolution, which is good for stability and long term growth as a society. And it's because we follow the political theory of a government "by the People, for the People, and of the People". Our government is US, we are the government, represented in the abstract by the representatives we send to D.C. And because of that, our government is more successful than not, and more adequately addresses problems that we as society see than other governmental systems that have come before. Our government is not some abstract Other, separate from us, and unaccountable to us, regardless of the hyperbole you may be told by people and groups who WANT YOU to think that you are powerless. They want you to think that government is a failure, that it is out of control....so that they can control it more than you.
Ask yourself, why do people fight so hard to get into office in an entity that they not only claim is not only a failure, but also evil, and the source of all problems?
And further, why do they try so hard to MAKE it fail, to make their claims come true?
The answer is because it's a sham. They want you to think those things, so that you stop caring, or stop trying, and cede control to them.
--
If you ever spend time in the military, you find lots of seemingly braindead warnings and procedures. Things like "caution jet blast", caution tape around bulkheads, particulary the top and bottom, signs near ladders saying "watch step", or "hold handrails". You may think these things are dumb, but going through training you will learn, each of these warning exist because someone, somewhere didn't pay attention, got hurt, screwed up, or hurt others. Someone fell down that ladderwell; someone got sucked into a jet engine; someone cracked his head open going through a hatch, someone knocked someone overboard.
Government action is very similar: Government and a lot of the functions it has taken on, or regulations it has made, like say in areas of food and car safety, or manufacturing pollution, exist specifically because someone, somewhere, took advantage of society before those rules exist. Companies know how m
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I keep seeing people say that and i have to wonder, if they did such a great job, why do they need to fix it. Its like health care and evil HMOs. The government pushed them to drop the cost of Medicare then had to fix that too.
You may not like what was said, but that just means reality sucks.
Re:May you choke on your own words (Score:5, Interesting)
Well first off, they aren't fixing it.
They are simply preserving the status quo as a bit of a pre-emptive strike before companies like Comcast can break it.
Re: (Score:2)
Managing anything is not the governments strong suit. Name one abundantly successful regulatory agency.
actually, NSFNET came after that (Score:5, Informative)
And the government created that too. And the government decided eventually that confining the internet to just academia (as the NSFNET was) didn't make sense so they closed down the NSFNET and the main links changed to be commercial instead of government paid.
This period you speak of where the ARPANET was the backbone for a network that was generally used never existed. The NSFNET started out around 1987 and you didn't see any real commercial use of the internet until the early 90s. Even CIX (ANS) came in 1991 with the help of the NSF. After Congress (including Al Gore) passed legislation pushing the NSF to repeal its restrictions on commercial use you saw significant commercial uses take off.
Today's internet is in no way an unintended consequence. It may not have been paid for by the government, but they did design and develop it and were well aware of the possibilities beyond academia.
Re:actually, NSFNET came after that (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that the government has the Midas touch? They succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams?
Re:May you choke on your own words (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:May you choke on your own words (Score:5, Insightful)
why is it so hard to accept or comprehend that things build on each other?
the full statement should be "you didn't build that all by yourself, you had help", and it's absolutely true in modern society.
all of our various constructs help and reinforce other constructs.
Gizmo Wonderbrain creates the practical flying car.
-Gizmos car factory is dependent on shipments from suppliers around the country.
--those shipments can be shipped quickly and easily because we have a national highway system
---that highway system is safe and reliable because we have rules and safety requirements
-gizmos factory is also dependent on skilled workers
--workers who are attracted to his company by good wages
---wages paid in currency usable around the world because it's backed by the full faith and credit of the government, rather than just in Gizmos Company Town
-Gizmo himself is a genius
--a genius whose intellect was brought out by his teachers in his schools as he grew up, reinforcing and challenging him
---teachers who taught in public schools because as a society we value education for the benefits it provides society
--a genius who went to college to learn engineering
---with the help of Pell Grants and a GI Bill
----paid for by a portion of everyone's taxes
Really we can go on and on. But the point is this: No one is born without help, raised without help, educated without help, creates a company without help, and all the surrounding and enabling infrastructure. Everything is dependent on everything else. Everything is built on a foundation that consists of everything that came before it. From the computer at your desk, to the clothes on your back, from the education you receives, to the gum in your pocket.
Look around you: the reason we don't exist in a Dickens novel where basic existence is an uncertainty, life is short and miserable for the overwhelming majority, is because we as a society pulled together and have created a slew of enabling infrastructure. The mechanisms vary, some are through government, others through private enterprise, but all in all, the end result is the same: No, you bloody well did NOT build "that" all by yourself and without any help from the surrounding society.
Re:May you choke on your own words (Score:5, Insightful)
Not the AC. But of course the government created the internet. To argue otherwise because it has grown since the 80's and 90's is to argue that GM didn't create the first commercial electric car because a Tesla has greater power, range, and 3G.
You don't have a point, you have a Randian axe to grind. And that makes you a moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:May you choke on your own words (Score:5, Insightful)
The car couldn't operate without the wheel that came before it.
So yes, the wheel absolutely gets some credit.
No, he doesn't get all of it.
But he does get credit for creating the foundation that enabled further development and invention. That's all the President's statement meant, though folks try to take it out of context, oversimplify it, and ignore the rather obvious meaning behind it.
It's quite simple: no one exists in a vacuum. Everyone in our society has had help from the rest of society, and we shouldn't ignore that interdependence.
Re:May you choke on your own words (Score:5, Informative)
Now I'm confused. If baseball hadn't been invented, how would Hank Aaron have hit home runs again?
Maybe we need to work on your similes.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is about as logical as saying "fire can burn firemen too so we better ban firefighting".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
to not recognize that more government control of the Internet is a good thing.
To all conservatives, more government regulation is uniformly bad.
To all liberals, more government regulation is uniformly good.
And so there we have the two sides, one pressing us to a feudal-style Private Police State run by Corporate Fascists, the other into a Authoritarian Police State Run by Big Government and Corporate Citizens. Either way we are already good and fucked regardless of who you vote for.
Re:Only Republicans are stupid enough... (Score:4, Insightful)
To all conservatives, more government regulation is uniformly bad.
To all liberals, more government regulation is uniformly good.
What a simplistic caricature of the positions.
Re: (Score:2)
True that it's a simplification, but if you listen to Ted Cruz talk, it's not that far off:
"Net Neutrality is the Obamacare of the Internet." "The IRS should be disbanded." "The EPA is a mess, run by radical environmentalists."
The same could be said of some of the crap Nancy Pelosi and others on the left say. It actually, physically hurts to listen to people like that...
Re:Only Republicans are stupid enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
> To all liberals, more government regulation is uniformly good.
Bullcrap. Sane liberalism says that the government puts in only the regulation that is *needed* and put on the people that can do the most harm. I know of NO liberal that wants regulation for the sake of regulation.
Your portrayal of conservatives is wrong as well. Most conservatives seem to be fine with regulation as long it is on people they don't like and want to punish. They seem to want the people who can do the most harm have the least regulation (for money purposes) and tend to NOT care about regulation on individuals and small business, the very people who can do the LEAST harm.
The fact you are parroting these political stereotypes means you listen to a very limited group of people.
Re:Only Republicans are stupid enough... (Score:4, Insightful)
I see it's not just Obamabots who revise history (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean choosing to continue most of the Bush Tax Cuts while arguing for years that the corporate tax rate - already at very low levels after deductions - should be cut some more? Randians should move to an island with the Obots and fight it out over who's revisionist history is more delusional.
Re: (Score:3)
Only now that they are Obama's, the Rs employ doublethink (now that's irony) to say they're bad. Kinda like Romneycare was a great idea until Obama implemented it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see the double think but maybe you do because you misunderstand where they like government to have power. When I talk with conservatives they like to have government authority and power invested at the state and local levels rather than the federal government. So it is odd to me to suggest that they should have supported Romneycare at the federal level for two major reasons. The first is that Romneycare was passed by a Democrat state legislature and signed into law by a Republican governor and the s
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Only Republicans are stupid enough... (Score:4, Insightful)
To all conservatives...
Ahem, that should read "To all Republicans..." I'm pretty damn conservative, and I think Republicans are some of a stupidest fucks to walk the planet. We're not one and the same, I can still freely admit when and where the Government does a good job without crapping myself.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Healthcare should be one of those things that we can agree that should be universal because it is actually the cheapest option available. Look at Switzerland probably one of the most conservative business oriented countries on the planet, they enacted universal healthcare because it was
Re: (Score:3)
> I was a Republican until the core Republican party went batsh*t crazy.
One down... only all the rest to go...
Re: (Score:2)
to not recognize that more government control of the Internet is a good thing.
To all conservatives, more government regulation is uniformly bad.
Unless those regulations involve telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, or are amendments preventing people of the same sex from marrying ...
Re: (Score:2)
Given the number of Republicans who have carped endlessly about how people who can't afford children shouldn't have them, you would think they would be delighted when such a person wants to make that a reality, but NOOOOOOOOO!
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that. my daughter does not want kids, she wants to have her tubes tied, but she cant because of laws not allowing voluntary sterilization of women younger than 25.
Hows that for some fucked up laws?
Re: (Score:2)
Except when it comes to regulations about abortion and other things imposed by religious factions.
Re:Only Republicans are stupid enough... (Score:4, Interesting)
A government's role should be: (pick one)
1. Break up monopolies, reduce barriers to market entry, and encourage competition, or
2. Regulate the behavior of monopolies.
Net Neutrality attempts to do #2.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
ensure that the people who belong to this country are safe
ensure everyone has equal opportunities (not equal outcomes)
Re: (Score:2)
True but the ISP are trying to deny equal opputunrity by charging three times for the same data. By creating fast lanes they are saying those with money are better no matter what. Which isn't true. The next google, Facebook or twitter will never be born with fast lanes.
Re: (Score:3)
By trying to equalize outcomes you do a couple things. You teach a portion of the public that they dont have to do anything because the government will take care of them. this is bad because the cycle gets worse not better
You should not be punishing people who do right, which is what happens why you try and equalize outcomes
Lets take sports for example, I would never want to see eq
Re: (Score:2)
That is nothing like equal opportunity. Especially when the X that some people cannot afford is 'succeed'.
Sports does have equal opportunity. If our current socio-economic situation was translated to football, some would have to kick off from their own end zone while the other team only needs 5 yards to get a 1st down. Others would get to kick off from the opposing 10 yard line and their opponants would need 15 yards to get a 1st down.
Now, imagine that the advantage is granted in proportion to how many supe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
20K kids in america die in poverty ever day??? Citation??? because if that were true id like to think that the media (at LEAST MSNBC) would be all over it
Re:Only Republicans are stupid enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Regulate the behavior of monopolies. Net Neutrality attempts to do #2.
In which market is Alamo Broadband a monopoly?
I know of no government granted monopoly status to ISPs. Comcast/TW/etc are defacto (not dejure) monopolies in cable television delivered internet service. Verizon/whatever are dejure monopolies on telephone-company provided ISPs. There exist many ISPs in the same markets as all of the previously mentioned companies. There are even ISPs that can provide ISP service via DSL over those dejure telco monopoly systems.
Do the FCC net neutrality rules actually limit themselves to places where there are actually defacto or dejure monopolies, or do they apply to every ISP? If they apply to every ISP, then they are not regulating the actions of monopolies, they are regulating many non-monopolies as well.
I'm fascinated by the FCC response to a filing that had to take place within ten days of their action and only happened close to the end of those ten days: "premature". Sorry FCC, you don't get to tell people they filed too early just because they filed within the very short deadline.
Re: (Score:2)
When deciding whether to break up a monopoly, does it really matter how it formed?
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like you're moving the goal posts. He didn't say granted monopoly, he just said monopoly. But given how many places have THE cable company and THE phone company, one must conclude that there is some structural element that causes monopolies.
Re: (Score:2)
I know of no government granted monopoly status to ISPs.
Most ISPs are either cable companies or telephone companies, who are granted their monopoly status by the local public service commission (PSC). The PSC will decide which companies can bury wires and/or place wires on the utility poles. (Those poles are often called "telephone" poles which gives you an idea of the monopoly mindset.)
Technically, anyone can be an ISP, but that is really tough to compete when the local monopoly is providing ISP service as well. Your only options are to use VPN, or lease lin
Re: (Score:3)
A government's role should be: (pick one)
1. Break up monopolies, reduce barriers to market entry, and encourage competition, or
2. Regulate the behavior of monopolies.
Net Neutrality attempts to do #2.
3. All of the above.
Natural monopolies should be regulated. This includes utilities (power, water, telephone) that rely on physical infrastructure. The owner of the infrastructure (the cables, the pipes), should be strictly regulated - and where possible being forced to allow competitors on their infrastructure. Ideally, owners of infrastructure and service providers using that infrastructure are separate.
The most obvious and easy to understand example is roads. The government builds roads and bridges, and
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC's rules, in their own publication, do not attempt to solve #2. There is no action an ISP has taken so far, that the FCC has said it could have regulated: they are purely speculative as to what an ISP might be able to do sometime in the future.
In particular, the FCC declined to regulate peering agreements, though it appears to be claiming the authority to (with another vote.
The FCC is claiming it has power it doesn't actually have, what's new?
Re: (Score:2)
While you may not agree that classifying ISP's as Title 2 is the right thing, to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It really has no choice. As big of a fight as 2 was, 1 would never get through.
Too many in Congress want option 3) We sit on our hands sincerely enough and the magic economy fairy will rise up from the pumpkin patch and ...
Re: (Score:2)
It beats the previous situation of give money to telecom, grant monopoly status and then let them do whatever the hell they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only Republicans are stupid enough... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter who wins the Circuit; this is going to the Supreme Court for sure, and given how partisan this issue is it's really only Roberts and Kennedy who have a decision to make there.
Re:Well, Time to Roll the Dice Again. (Score:4, Insightful)
Does this bother you as much as it does me?
It is unfortunate that so many of our laws are so poorly written that one's political stance can have such an effect on the interpretation of the law.
"Well, this is what they wrote, but what did they really mean, and how can I twist it to meet my own personal political views?"
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that partisanship has entered the judicial branch at all. No law, however well written, is immune to being twisted by sophistry until black means white and yes means no.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Teddy Roosevelt rides again! (Score:4, Informative)
The 2015 personal income maximum California tax rate is 13.30% [tax-rates.org] for an individual making more then $1,000,000 or a couple making more then $1,039,374.
The 2015 California corporate tax rate is a flat 8.84% [tax-rates.org].
So are you a degenerate liar or just dumber then a box of rocks? The truth took a mindless Google search and about 20 seconds. Are you incapable of that level effort or do you expect that everyone one else is as uninformed as you are and will believe whatever drivel you post?
So go back to where you live in your mother's basement and look for the radioactive CIA mind control scorpions and leave the rest of us surface dwellers alone.
Re:Teddy Roosevelt rides again! (Score:4, Insightful)
Calm down and cool it with the name calling. He is neither. He is not even mistaken. You add the top CA rate of 13.3% to the top Federal rate of 39.6% - a CA resident has to pay them both, you know - and, duh, the total is over 50%.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but that won't wash with most thinking people. They realize that the taxes government raises are not to aggrandize the government, but to pay for programs intended to benefit people. The issue of whether many people IN government get unreasonably rich while performing their service is one which is completely
Re: (Score:2)
Democratic governments represent the will of the people so, if the people are greedy, their governments will be greedy.
There is a quote from DeToqueville (sp?) that goes something like "democracies exist only until the majority realizes they can tax the minority to pay for things they want." When the majority doesn't pay a tax but they can vote to enact it, you've arrived. And when the majority is defined by "people who don't pay that tax" and nothing else, we've kicked our shoes off and are sittin' a spell, long past just "arrived".
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship is what the government does. Private individuals are free to engage in editing and may pick and choose what to allow in their own homes or on their own web sites.
Re: (Score:2)